Recent Responses
Is it right to kill in self-defense or use any type of violence?
Nicholas D. Smith
February 25, 2010
(changed February 25, 2010)
Permalink
I think there is a difference between saying that something is right to do, and saying that something is morally justified (or justifiable). I think, accordingly, that killing in self-defense should be understood as morally justifiable (and justified in some cases), rather than insis... Read more
Is there a philosophical value placed on the experience of deja vu? Does it work towards one philosophy's standpoint?
Nicholas D. Smith
February 25, 2010
(changed February 25, 2010)
Permalink
I'm not aware of any philosophical uses of this phenomenon. I myself would be inclined to think that unless we can show that these experiences are veridical (in other words, if by some scientific process, we could show that those who experience deja vu actually were "there before"),... Read more
On May 28, 2009, Jennifer Church wrote: "A more abstract reason for disallowing suicide concerns the apparent contradiction in the idea that we can improve a life by ending a life. The suicide's thought that she will be better off dead seems to contradict the fact that, if dead, she will not be anything. Her desire to retain control over her life by ending it in the way she wants to end seems to contradict the fact that there is no control over a life that has ended. There are other ways to express a suicidal intention, though, that do not lead to such contradictions." This has been haunting me since I first read it. As suggested, I am unable to devise a non-contradictory logic of suicide (for argument, base this thought on life being a biomechanical phenomenon, no after-life, and really no proof that anything at all remains in existance if you (the contemplator) are not conscious of it. This has taken on a particular poignancy as a friend has recently killed himself. I see existence continuing despite his absence. There is no more "He" to not feel whatever he was trying to escape. It's as ambiguous to me as spontaneous generation, only backwards. If, on the other hand, I were to kill myself, nothing would necessarily "continue", existence would cease, I would not be in a better, worse, "no longer suffering" or any other now meaningless state. Intellectually (i.e. right now), I find myself in an "alogical" situation.
Nicholas D. Smith
February 25, 2010
(changed February 25, 2010)
Permalink
I hope Jennifer Church will also answer this one. But I don't quite see why the decision to commit suicide must be based upon the fallacy of thinking that one will be better off. The value of eliminating something bad does not have to derive from some (other) benefit achieved in the... Read more
Your marriage of 10 years is "in a bad place" and you find yourself seeking "compensatory" emotional gratification through extra-marital sex, with a) an acquaintance and then b) briefly, while drunk, with the spouse of your sibling. You realise your mistake. You tell no-one, out of cowardice, but also out of sorrow that it has happened and a knowledge that you love your spouse and you know that your spouse would be devastated by what you have done. You return to the marriage with determination to do better and the behaviour never reoccurs. You devote yourself to loving and caring for your spouse and you both enjoy a deepening relationship in which both parties commit and contribute wholeheartedly. Over the next ten years your spouse becomes progressively more sick and eventually dies without ever discovering your earlier treachery. Almost simultaneously, your sibling's marriage breaks up and the "in-law" behaves shittily, claiming that the break-up of the marriage is entirely the fault of your (innocent) sibling who is baffled by, and distraught about the break-up. You know that the "in-law" has been serially un-faithful to your sibling but your sibling is unaware that their spouse's infidelity involves you. Question: How do you come to terms with the universal goodwill that comes your way for your apparently self-less care of your dying spouse throughout the long years of illness, when you look back and realise that for you, it was but a poor penance for the wrongs you committed in secret? Does your love for your spouse have any meaning now? And their love for you? And should you confess your sins to your sibling, knowing that your children may ultimately discover what you did? What "ought" you to do????? And why? I am so sorry for the clumsy pronoun use - I did not want a gender-biased answer (as if that could happen here of all places!!!) I so need help with this - I am in agony...
Nicholas D. Smith
February 25, 2010
(changed February 25, 2010)
Permalink
Some approaches to ethics hold that dishonesty can never be the correct policy, on the ground (very roughly, for brevity here) that such a policy could never be recommended generally (or universally), and/or because dishonesty is in itself and inherently wrong. One can understand som... Read more
Should prominent adults (e.g. athletes) be held responsible as role models for young children even if they do not consider or present themselves as such?
Nicholas D. Smith
February 25, 2010
(changed February 25, 2010)
Permalink
I do not think we have a right to expect prominent adults who do not represent themselves as role models to serve in that capacity, or to be held responsible for failing in that capacity, when they do.
To take a very controversial recent example, Tiger Woods became a celebrity becau... Read more
I am of legal age for sexual experiences and my partner is also. My question pertains to the rightness or wrongness of consensually losing my virginity to my partner after knowing her for only two days. I care about her quite a bit and she I. I like to think that I make halfway good decisions, but I felt so caught up in the moment that I stopped thinking and just ran on instinct. I seldom, if ever, make rash decisions but this time was different. So in this situation was I morally wrong to give away my virginity so quickly to someone I recently met? Please note that I am not a devout Christian but consider myself a student of Platonic, Aristotelian, and Kantian thought, I hope this helps frame my mindset and the internal conflict I have been experiencing. Thank you for your help.
Peter Smith
February 25, 2010
(changed February 25, 2010)
Permalink
Let's see if I'm understanding. You hook up with someone whom you really like and who really likes you. There's a considerable sexual attraction. The hormones are more than buzzing and you are of an age when it is only too natural to want to start a sex life (and you are old enough for it t... Read more
Let's agree that something is art if the art world views it as art. Many famous painters were refused exhibition for years, only to have their rejected works considered masterpieces at a later date. Others were considered great artists, only to be virtually forgotten. Operas go in and out of fashion. Same with literary works. Does this mean that the same works can be art at some points in time but not art at other points in time?
Jonathan Westphal
February 25, 2010
(changed February 25, 2010)
Permalink
"Let's agree that something is art if the art world views it as art." I think that we shouldn't agree to this proposition, precisely because it does seem that it has the relativistic implications you describe. So I take your question to be, "Does the institutional theory of art, e.g.... Read more
Hi, I'm wondering what is the purpose of moral philosophy assuming that our moral intuitions are mere products of evolution. Evolutionary psychology seems to explain our moral roots (genes that coded for cooperation helped the organisms in which they resided reproduce and replicate those genes). Given this, our instincts that say we should behave in certain ways are merely adaptations that increased survival. It seems then that there is no objective answer to "What should I do?" and the entire field of normative ethics is premised on the delusion that there is. Wouldn't it be more honest for professors of moral philosophy to tell their students that they're merely looking for a consistent framework for decision-making that best coheres with our moral intuitions? And that outside of these intuitions (which arose because they increased survival), there is no warrant for believing in some absolute, metaphysical grounding of ethics--in other words an objective answer to the question "what SHOULD I do?" Thanks!
Thomas Pogge
February 24, 2010
(changed February 24, 2010)
Permalink
As happens often, also with professional philosophers, your word "then" marks the weakest spot in your argument. "Our instincts that say we should behave in certain ways are merely adaptations that increased survival. It seems then that there is no objective answer to 'What should I do?'."... Read more
Do you think consensual BDSM is immoral?
Peter Smith
February 20, 2010
(changed February 20, 2010)
Permalink
Isn't this far too like e.g. the question "Is enjoying pornography immoral?" In that case it all depends what exactly is in question: a bald yes/no answer would be hopelessly insensitive to the great variety of materials that fall under the very sweeping term "pornography". My impression --... Read more
How much do you need to know about mathematics to begin learning about the philosophy of mathematics or, for example, read something like The Principles of Mathematics or Principia Mathematica by Bertrand Russell?
Peter Smith
February 19, 2010
(changed February 19, 2010)
Permalink
How much do you need to know about science to begin learning about the philosophy of science? Some but not a great deal if you are interested in very general metaphysical questions about e.g. the nature of explanation, laws and causation, and in very general methodological questions about h... Read more